Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already did. I shared a video of an Indian man having his bum leg restored. No mental games because there was a language barrier. It was never given a moment of consideration. And yes, you would even laugh off a video of a limb growing back. Claim it is tricky. They did the same thing in Jesus day.
Plus, most Muslims are a product of their culture. If I was raised in a cult like atmosphere from birth, I would also believe without doubt.
All people like you do is keep putting up conditions and barriers on evidence which only demonstrates a complete sincere lack of desire to see evidence that proves God.
We already explained why that video could not be accepted at face value. It was just like a claim 'My mother was dying of cancer..." but in visual form. There is no verification, and for you to say it can't be faked is falling over backwards to accept something you'd never believe if was proving Hinduism or Islam.
No, this is not what I am saying. This is perhaps an irrelevant example. You are talking about laws and rules that we have agreed upon. It has hardly anything to do with using our logic and intelligence to re-invent this wheel. We already agree that 2+2 = 4
Now, here is an example that perhaps you and I can talk about.
I go out to my driveway, and take a few small stones and put them together in a way that they form the shape of alphabets that spell my name.
I take my cell phone and take a pic of that in order to save my design.
I then put all these stones in a bucket, and toss them in the air, and let them land on the concrete to see if the same design can be formed again? I repeat this quite a few times and notice that it's not happening.
I realize that I don't seem to have an in-depth control and calculated energy where I can toss the stones in the air in such a way that if they land, it will form the the alphabets of my name.
Now, I look at the design of our solar system. I see the circular and oval orbits formed by different planets around the sun.
My logic tells me that it's not possible for this formation to have come together on it's own. There is definitely a design and a designer behind it.
while your logic may tell you otherwise. Your intelligence and your logic may tell you that yes, indeed the design of our solar system is created randomly by chance. There is no force behind all this to design all this.
This is the logical difference I am talking about.
Here is another example,
I have taken a course on the subject of "probability".
My logic asks a simple question when I look at the two pics below.
What's the probability of Fibonacci spiral being present in the shape of galaxies and also inside the cabbage?
Is it by chance or is it by design?
My logic and intelligence tells me that probability of this phenomenon is almost impossible to have been randomly present in the galaxies and inside the cabbage.
Your logic and intelligence may tell you otherwise.
So yeah, it's not about what's 2+2, it's about whether all of the universe and everything in it came together by itself, or whether there is a creator behind it?
As Einstein said,
“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.
This has become a discussion on proving a god of some kind rather than a particular Holy Book. But the argument from pretty patterns is a false one. The cabbage (you could have done the same with a Chrysanthymum or Nautilus shell) is simple. DNA instructions repeat the same pattern one after the other in the next space. The process is perfectly natural. The result appeals to our liking for regularity and surprises us with visual regularity in a world where things aren't as regular as that. It doesn't mean it was designed, in fact we know it wasn't.
The coincidental similarity of the spiral in a galaxy is also caused by known physical actions. You can look the explanation up. None of that is any evidence of design.
Now you may shift the goalposts and ask who made the laws of physics or created the instructions of DNA.
That takes a bit more explaining and we ought to avoid science discussions. But it is explainable in terms of chemical evolution.
It doesn't require us to say that 'Only a god could have caused that'. Never mind which god, or religion or Holy Book.
Perhaps I could address your over-complicated analogy. You could say you threw a handful of stones several times and they formed the same pattern each time. Wow. In fact on a level table -top that won't happen. We know.
But then you take -say -a hub cap raised in the middle (physical forces or DNA instructions) Now they will form roughly the same pattern, every time.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2017 at 06:14 AM..
I don't think anyone "commissioned" scripture to be written. The rulers definitely used the scriptures as they found them, to their advantage. But they probably believed it themselves, and just interpreted them in a way that was beneficial to serving them, since everyone believes they are right and therefore must be served by all things such as scriptures.
The common people believed them. But the people who read the stories might not have even been born when they were written. They might have slowly gotten popular over a number of years, but their origins were lost by then. So I don't buy the idea that they were being written and read by the common public at the same time. Otherwise their origins would have been passed down in some way.
The only thing passed down was that "Moses" wrote the first five books. A fictional character wrote them. That's why I can't buy that.
I still don't buy it. Though I could be wrong, of course. The way thinking is now, the books of law (Numbers, Deuteronomy, Leviticus) were first and certainly setting out rules and procedures required by authorities. It is suggested it was Omri and his priestly advisors, produced the Laws. Then we get the historical polemics of Kings and Samuel. These are histories written to prove, really, that Israel's god was the only one that mattered and was rooting for he Tribe of Hebrews -when he wasn't punishing them.
Then after he had punished them by obliterating the two northern states and exiling the Judeans, the creation and Exodus were written to show how the Hebrews were really the Urtext, and by implication leaders and rulers, of all mankind.
All this was reflecting a political agenda as much (or more than) as one person writing History, like a Greek or Roman, or being inspired to set down God's truth.
The Bible we have has two agendas (1) the OT says that God favours the Jews. (2)the NT says 'Not any more -he favours the gentiles'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2017 at 06:20 AM..
Nope. Not being able to stop pontificating is not the same as being an engaging poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
No one who truly understands science.
Funny how he misses this point completely. LOL
Pile of goop...what the heck does that even mean? I guess he feels more comfortable in thinking we came from clay/dirt/soil. *shrug*
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I once mentioned where he - like all of us - originated from. I don't want to over do it.
(Good to hear from you again)
It certainly is. And I'm missing Shirina again
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
The alleged lack of fulfilled prophesies in the Quran could be taken to mean it is more honest.
Couldn't agree with you more. But who believes these things?
By 'a pile goop' do you perhaps mean a mound of clay or dirt? Your very own bible tells you that we were formed from a mound of dirt/clay/soil. Are you saying that this is an irrational belief?
That's a Gottim if I ever saw it. But, aside from his trying to discredit the Abiogenesis - idea by using trivializing language, (you could do the same by describing cloud formation or waves), what is being argued there is argument from incredulity -that life could come from non -life.
As I explained to Eusebius when he was still here, this argument is failure of imagination, not using reason. It is also ignoring a few plausible mechanisms for life coming from non life. We don't know whether that happened, nor can it be proved that it did happen. But what is shown is that it could happen, and to say it is not possible doesn't stand up, and the God -mustha-dunnit' 'evidence' relies on that being the only possible option. So the 'lightning hinting a mud -puddle' and similar mockery and sneering arguments are not only mocking what it doesn't know but at what it doesn't want to know. It reinforces an incorrect argument that life from non -life is impossible, by the Rhetorical trick of trying to make it look silly.
The atheist side does the same of course. Mockery and ridicule are rhetorical devices used by both sides. It is almost an axiom that you can discredit someone's argument better by making everyone laugh at it than by making everyone understand that it doesn't stack up.
However, as we found with the "Atheist nitemare" simply explaining how wrong he was made Ray Comfort and his designed banana a laughing -stock, and he now has to pretend he was only kidding all along.
So, mockery and rhetorical deprecation aside, the bottom line is whose argument best stands up. When it falls on its' ass, you get the laugh without having to make it look ridiculous.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2017 at 06:27 AM..
I think this is where you either purposely or unconsciously come out as blind folded from one side. Why don't you see the flip side of the coin?
There are MANY believers who have spent their entire lives working for the benefit of fellow human beings.
Lots of charity work, donations, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, orphan houses, shelter for homeless, building of hospitals, animal shelters, volunteer work in disastrous areas, providing free education and free medical care to needy, and quite a few things.
Why don't you be generous enough to give credit where due to all those religious people and believers who have stepped up and did their part of doing what's good and beneficial for others?
I think its "human nature".
Be it a group of religious people, a bunch of politicians, a group of doctors, a group of Atheists, a group of teachers, policemen, social workers, Asians, Americans, European, Japanese, blacks, whites, Browns ...,,,, no matter what group you look at, you will ALWAYS find good and bad people.
So it's not only what religion brings to you, but also it's what YOU bring to religion. And this philosophy can be applied to any group.
We have a human nature that has the capacity of doing a lot of good, and also doing a lot of bad.
It's then up to each individual as to which route he wants to take regardless of whether he comes up as a religious person or an Atheists, or a doctor, or a policeman, or Japanese or whatever.
Yes, but you miss Arach's point. I'll take the best view and pass over the point that people are doing this from human feelings of compassion, not because of their religion, or the question of mow much charitable work they'd do if they were banned from using it o promote religion, or the argument that arguing that the analogy of a charge of multiple rape should be dismissed because the fellow did a lot of voluntary work with the homeless does not stand up.
But I will simply make the basic, real and Only point there is - Arq's Atheist Axiom no 5: "You cannot buy the truth with free soup". All the good deeds in the world won't prove that the world is flat when we are darn sure it isn't.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2017 at 06:30 AM..
All we're asking you and all the other devout believers to do is show physical, tangible proof of a god. This request has been asked of theists for generations and centuries but nobody has ever been able to provide this proof. This so-called god has never shown himself to exist.
Religion is all theory, not fact. You have a right to believe what you want, but insisting your beliefs are correct and non-believers are wrong is very conceited and narrow-minded on your part.
There is physical evidence all around you. And that is the beauty of the creation. Just look at how many variations there are of the human face. Probably thousands. Yet every other animal species all pretty much look exactly like their kind. Give me a room of chimps and they all pretty much look the same. Same hair, same nose, same lips etc...
Until science can create life from non-life then atheists live by even more faith.
The alleged lack of fulfilled prophesies in the Quran could be taken to mean it is more honest.
Couldn't agree with you more. But who believes these things?
By 'a pile goop' do you perhaps mean a mound of clay or dirt? Your very own bible tells you that we were formed from a mound of dirt/clay/soil. Are you saying that this is an irrational belief?
I'm referring to Primordial Soup. To be fair though, it's probably this scene that's been stuck in my head and making me think of goop.
There is physical evidence all around you. And that is the beauty of the creation. Just look at how many variations there are of the human face. Probably thousands. Yet every other animal species all pretty much look exactly like their kind. Give me a room of chimps and they all pretty much look the same. Same hair, same nose, same lips etc...
Until science can create life from non-life then atheists live by even more faith.
That is absolutely no evidence of design. If the stuff looks the same it is proof of design, ifi all looks a bit different it is the wondrous variety This is laughably obvious plastering your god -belief on whatever you see, whatever it is and whatever form it takes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I'm referring to Primordial Soup. To be fair though, it's probably this scene that's been stuck in my head and making me think of goop.
Thank you! I first thought that was Lane Craig using the 'Mud puddle' argument. I didn't realize Q looks just like him. And there is "Q" documemnt, too...you can't tell me that's just coincidence!
In any case, that clip was just a bit of fun. It is probably no more accurate s picture of the origins of life than Fantasia's rite of spring prehistory sequence is accurate. Though the 'Extinction' is still valid science. Probably there was a globe -full of seething biochemicals and the joke was on Q. In fact it was like sperms. While only one does the job, take it out and it will be the next one.
"Don't you realize, "Q" by taking out that glop of protoplasmic gloop, you gave us our chance? In a way, it was you who created the life that eventually developed and ourselves. If you hadn't phasered those cells, I wouldn't be here."
If there is ever another startrek series, I am available as a story-script consulant. Competitive rates plus travelling expenses.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2017 at 07:52 AM..
Yes, but you miss Arach's point. I'll take the best view and pass over the point that people are doing this from human feelings of compassion, not because of their religion, or the question of mow much charitable work they'd do if they were banned from using it o promote religion, or the argument that arguing that the analogy of a charge of multiple rape should be dismissed because the fellow did a lot of voluntary work with the homeless does not stand up..
How seemingly interesting.
When a believer does something good, you attribute it to ""Human feelings of compassion" but if the same believer does something not good, what do you blame? Yes of course, "His Faith and religion".
Not sure about you but I don't think I have ever seen an Atheist taking home a homeless man to his home. Provide him with a shower facility and feed with him a hot meal, and perhaps help him financially or provide social support to get him back on his track. May be you have done something like this?
Also, who or what is to blame, when an Atheist does something bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
But I will simply make the basic, real and Only point there is - Arq's Atheist Axiom no 5: "You cannot buy the truth with free soup". All the good deeds in the world won't prove that the world is flat when we are darn sure it isn't.
I agree on this one.
Good deeds are not done to prove that the world is flat.
Baseless claim, unless you can show me how the Koran has just as much fulfilled prophecy, Islam has just as many testimonies of supernatural encounters and miracle healings. There is even a worldwide annual conference of Christian doctors who meet to share their experiences with miracle healing and documented proof of such things. Does Islam have an equivalent?
It is more irrational to believe that we gave from a pile of goop, humans are nothing much bags of cells, and things like love are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain.
what is wrong with a pile goo?
you don't see your rejection of that based on your feeling about it isn't our problem. And that feeling gives no base of us believing in your type of god?
"love isn't a chemical." again, why not? why does it bother you? Also, how you feel about it is not a reason to have magic in our conclusions. why would you force magic on us?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though I could be wrong, of course. The way thinking is now, the books of law (Numbers, Deuteronomy, Leviticus) were first and certainly setting out rules and procedures required by authorities. It is suggested it was Omri and his priestly advisors, produced the Laws. Then we get the historical polemics of Kings and Samuel. These are histories written to prove, really, that Israel's god was the only one that mattered and was rooting for he Tribe of Hebrews -when he wasn't punishing them.
I guess he feels more comfortable in thinking we came from clay/dirt/soil. *shrug*
